Tweet
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudi...x#.U76Go7GakWI
The ASA received five complaints.
1. Two complainants challenged whether ad (a) breached the Code, because it did not include a representative APR (RAPR); and
2. Three complainants, one of whom was a money advice worker, challenged whether the RAPR in ad (b) was sufficiently prominent.
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that Regulation 6(1)(a)(ii) required credit ads to specify the RAPR if they indicated in any way that any of the terms on which credit was available was more favourable than corresponding terms applied in any other case or by any other creditors. The ad featured a conversation between a potential customer seeking a loan and employees of an unnamed competitor payday loans company. The customer enquired about the availability of "Sunny rates ... rates that can drop the next time you borrow, just by making four on-time payments", and terminated the call when he found that the company did not offer loans on those terms. We considered that the implication of that conversation was that credit was offered by Sunny on terms more favourable than those applied by other creditors, and therefore that the ad included a comparative indication triggering the requirement to include the RAPR. We noted that at the end of the ad the customer was shown visiting the Sunny website on his laptop and considered that that reinforced the comparative aspect of the ad. We welcomed Sunny's willingness to include the RAPR in future versions of the ad.
Because the ad featured a comparative indication without stating the RAPR, we concluded that it breached the Code.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rule 14.11 (Lending and credit).
The ASA received five complaints.
1. Two complainants challenged whether ad (a) breached the Code, because it did not include a representative APR (RAPR); and
2. Three complainants, one of whom was a money advice worker, challenged whether the RAPR in ad (b) was sufficiently prominent.
1. Upheld
The ASA noted that Regulation 6(1)(a)(ii) required credit ads to specify the RAPR if they indicated in any way that any of the terms on which credit was available was more favourable than corresponding terms applied in any other case or by any other creditors. The ad featured a conversation between a potential customer seeking a loan and employees of an unnamed competitor payday loans company. The customer enquired about the availability of "Sunny rates ... rates that can drop the next time you borrow, just by making four on-time payments", and terminated the call when he found that the company did not offer loans on those terms. We considered that the implication of that conversation was that credit was offered by Sunny on terms more favourable than those applied by other creditors, and therefore that the ad included a comparative indication triggering the requirement to include the RAPR. We noted that at the end of the ad the customer was shown visiting the Sunny website on his laptop and considered that that reinforced the comparative aspect of the ad. We welcomed Sunny's willingness to include the RAPR in future versions of the ad.
Because the ad featured a comparative indication without stating the RAPR, we concluded that it breached the Code.
On that point, ad (a) breached BCAP Code rule 14.11 (Lending and credit).
